<quoted text>It seems really desperate when one has to go back to 1983 documents to prove your point.

do't make fun of documents from the 19080's. All of the documents about RR Admin support of use of chemical weapons by Iraq against Iran - through US supplying info on targets to the Iraqi military - should be not only released, but discussed more prominently. The US as a nation is not fit to condemn assad, if one considers relatively recent US history. First Ronnie and his folks help Saddam Hussein use chemical weapons against the Iranians, then the GOP Admin does nothing to prevent Saddam from doing harm to the Kurds with chemical weapons, then Bus W years later uses the fact that SH used chemical weapons as an argument that he is a terrible guy who must be replaced. I'd buy that if people would also admit that Ronnie was also a terrible guy who should have been replaced.

I can't say that some sort of deity may exist hidden away somewhere but I know 100% for sure that Lincock's personal god does not exist.<quoted text>

Sorry, I am not familiar with Lincock's personal god. How do you "know" for sure it does not exist?(I assume you are correct in thinking it is ridiculous to believe in it, but I am unaware of what the socalled proofs are offered for and against its existence.) I only feel I know for sure that there could not be an allgoodallpowerful God. The others are really silly, and it is ridiculous to believe in them, and not worth taking the time to try to prove their nonexistence in a way that results in what I would call "knowing." The reluctance I have is regarding the standards I have for claiming to know. The standards I have regarding belief in a God are less rigorous - one does not want to believe in something evil or ridiculous, even if it might possibly exist and cannot be proven in an intellectually rigorous manner not to exist. The universe and events in this earth do not entirely convince me that there is not a rotten god out there somewhere. I just would not want to admire it and believe in it.

Is a person a Godbot for doubting the assertions of those who say they know or can prove there is not a God? Is an agnostic atheist a Godbot, for thinking that an atheist who claims to know is overreaching a bit? I am not unfriendly to such atheists if they are not nasty or arrogant about it. I do get critical of those who claim to know and are hostile to those of us who do not believe, but also do not claim to know - with regard to most definitions of a god - with what we regard as a rigorous enough definition of what "knowing" is. To me, not believing is the essence of atheism, not claiming to know that there is no God.The only one I claim to know does not exist is the one supposedly allgoodand allpowerful, which could not exist because of the presence of pain and suffering (otherwise called evil) in our lives. An allgood God that was all powerful would not tolerate the existence of anything painful for its feeling creatures. I can actually imagine a very ineffective well-meaning God, trying its best against heavy odds, and finding things stacked against him. I just have to think of Obama's political problems now, and I get a good idea of what such a being would be like. The heavy odds favoring the evil ones (from RL to Assad) are overpowering ineffectual efforts to do good.

grammar a bit unclear above when I refer to "such atheists". I am an agnostic atheist who is not unfriendly to nice atheists who come closer to claiming they have proof or knowledge. But I am very hostile to nasty atheists who define atheism is knowing there is no God, and who claim that they have proof but do not have to provide it, and who are nasty to agnostic atheists. Mostly I mean Skeptic and lol in a suit when he defends Skeptic and attacks me.

I suspect many atheists are agnostic atheists, and that there are degrees of feeling sure between an agnostic atheist and the know-it-all claimant. So I go by politeness and tolerance, and do not insist on an overt self-description of ones-self as an agnostic atheist.

I am even not unfriendly to agnostics who are somewhat inclined to believe in nice gods, though not those who try to defend any conventional god as actually being nice. The latter are apologists for evil. The others are ambitious revisionists - I wish them luck, they have their work cut out for them. Especially if one takes a good look at the universe and world history.

<quoted text> do't make fun of documents from the 19080's. All of the documents about RR Admin support of use of chemical weapons by Iraq against Iran - through US supplying info on targets to the Iraqi military - should be not only released, but discussed more prominently. The US as a nation is not fit to condemn assad, if one considers relatively recent US history. First Ronnie and his folks help Saddam Hussein use chemical weapons against the Iranians, then the GOP Admin does nothing to prevent Saddam from doing harm to the Kurds with chemical weapons, then Bus W years later uses the fact that SH used chemical weapons as an argument that he is a terrible guy who must be replaced. I'd buy that if people would also admit that Ronnie was also a terrible guy who should have been replaced.

<quoted text>atheist often attempt to defend their religion with the dictionary :-)Amusing

I'll have to start watching for that. I pretty much use a dictionary as it was designed to be used. If atheists use it differently, I'll certainly ask them which dictionary they're using. I know people like you think dictionaries are from the devil because they prove you to be wrong so often. You make up your own definitions and just expect everyone to agree with you whether you are correct or not.

It's amusing that you call me an atheist when I have never claimed to be one nor have I ever claimed that I do not believe in God. I just don't believe that God is the nasty pr*ck you and some of the other Christians on Topix make him out to be.

I can't say that some sort of deity may exist hidden away somewhere but I know 100% for sure that Lincock's personal god does not exist.<quoted text>

I disagree, T. His God is himself, therefore his God does exist. His God only thinks what he thinks, knows what he knows, hates who he hates, etc, etc, etc. Not an intelligent God and knows nothing about the Bible or the teachings of Jesus.

Is a person a Godbot for doubting the assertions of those who say they know or can prove there is not a God? Is an agnostic atheist a Godbot, for thinking that an atheist who claims to know is overreaching a bit? I am not unfriendly to such atheists if they are not nasty or arrogant about it. I do get critical of those who claim to know and are hostile to those of us who do not believe, but also do not claim to know - with regard to most definitions of a god - with what we regard as a rigorous enough definition of what "knowing" is. To me, not believing is the essence of atheism, not claiming to know that there is no God.The only one I claim to know does not exist is the one supposedly allgoodand allpowerful, which could not exist because of the presence of pain and suffering (otherwise called evil) in our lives. An allgood God that was all powerful would not tolerate the existence of anything painful for its feeling creatures. I can actually imagine a very ineffective well-meaning God, trying its best against heavy odds, and finding things stacked against him. I just have to think of Obama's political problems now, and I get a good idea of what such a being would be like. The heavy odds favoring the evil ones (from RL to Assad) are overpowering ineffectual efforts to do good.

Anyone who claims to KNOW that God does or does not exist is a fool. If anyone had proof and actually knew, there would be no need for faith or belief and there would be tangible proof. Anyone who claims they know God does not exist is arrogant. There is no proof that a God of some sort does not exist. There is proof that the convoluted stories of God some people believe in cannot be true. All you have to do is look at the contradictions and infighting in the NT. Look at the difference in the words attributed to Jesus while he was teaching and the words attributed to him after the crucifixion. It's like there were two Jesus', OR, there was one who actually taught before the crucifixion and a whole bunch of people putting their own words into his mouth after his death.

<quoted text> I'll have to start watching for that. I pretty much use a dictionary as it was designed to be used. If atheists use it differently, I'll certainly ask them which dictionary they're using. I know people like you think dictionaries are from the devil because they prove you to be wrong so often. You make up your own definitions and just expect everyone to agree with you whether you are correct or not.It's amusing that you call me an atheist when I have never claimed to be one nor have I ever claimed that I do not believe in God. I just don't believe that God is the nasty pr*ck you and some of the other Christians on Topix make him out to be.

Never claimed religion......find the old worn out atheist philosophy a joke rapped up in mumbo junbo

<quoted text> Anyone who claims to KNOW that God does or does not exist is a fool. If anyone had proof and actually knew, there would be no need for faith or belief and there would be tangible proof. Anyone who claims they know God does not exist is arrogant. There is no proof that a God of some sort does not exist. There is proof that the convoluted stories of God some people believe in cannot be true. All you have to do is look at the contradictions and infighting in the NT. Look at the difference in the words attributed to Jesus while he was teaching and the words attributed to him after the crucifixion. It's like there were two Jesus', OR, there was one who actually taught before the crucifixion and a whole bunch of people putting their own words into his mouth after his death.

Bob and Man of Science argued against the theory of a god using Quantum Physics. Since that is not my area, I cannot support or contest their argument. However, I disagree with your statement when you say that to say there is no god is arrogant. Using your argument, we would not be able to say that Spiderman, the Gargoyles, the Tooth Fairy, or the Spaghetti Monster isn't real because there is as much evidence for God as those I'e just listed.After millions of years of existence, one would think that god would leave some form of evidence.

<quoted text>I disagree, T. His God is himself, therefore his God does exist. His God only thinks what he thinks, knows what he knows, hates who he hates, etc, etc, etc. Not an intelligent God and knows nothing about the Bible or the teachings of Jesus.

<quoted text> I'll have to start watching for that. I pretty much use a dictionary as it was designed to be used. If atheists use it differently, I'll certainly ask them which dictionary they're using....

<quoted text>Never claimed religion......find the old worn out atheist philosophy a joke rapped up in mumbo junbo

What a crock. And what a lame attempt at trying to deny your belief system. All one has to do is read your posts and know that you have religious beliefs. If you believe in a supernatural being, i.e. a God, you have a religion.

I'm sorry but your claim here does not hold up. Keep changing names though, and if you can figure out how to change your whole personality then we might believe you don't have a religion. And don't give me that 'personal relationship' stuff. If you have one of those, start paying taxes on it, even if it is invisible.

<quoted text>Bob and Man of Science argued against the theory of a god using Quantum Physics. Since that is not my area, I cannot support or contest their argument. However, I disagree with your statement when you say that to say there is no god is arrogant. Using your argument, we would not be able to say that Spiderman, the Gargoyles, the Tooth Fairy, or the Spaghetti Monster isn't real because there is as much evidence for God as those I'e just listed.After millions of years of existence, one would think that god would leave some form of evidence.

But can you PROVE there isn't a God of some sort? That was the point. And by the way, please don't tell me there isn't a tooth fairy because I've been leaving a tooth under my pillow for months now with a note asking for the winning lottery ticket to be left instead of the measly $270 that tooth is worth.

<quoted text> But can you PROVE there isn't a God of some sort? That was the point. And by the way, please don't tell me there isn't a tooth fairy because I've been leaving a tooth under my pillow for months now with a note asking for the winning lottery ticket to be left instead of the measly $270 that tooth is worth.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.